Serious food for thought .... Thanks Brian for pointing out the possible implications of a profound humanitarian issue right on our doorstep.

At least any refugee from this region will have a legitimate claim for asylum in that they have crossed a border into a safe country - not crossed a dozen borders to get to a place they want to migrate to.

Indonesia is a concern on so many levels

Slightly digressing from topic - I see Malaysia and Indonesia as the problem not part of it. The reason being they let these so called refugees in without visa or return ticket knowing full well they are not tourists who will return home after a holiday. They could stop them easily by requiring a visa and return ticket and a few simply questions at immigration.
To be they do not want to do this, there can be only 1 reason that is to undermine Australia and it is working. Why can't the politicians see this?

How will we cope with a 100,000 boat people a year? I believe that outboard powered traditional tinnies, would be very hard put to move that many people, in the first place; and we, simply unable and probably unwilling, to even try to cope with that many arrivals?
Nor would we welcome new super strains of tuberculosis, polio or virtually untreatable cerebral malaria?
In any event, it is purely hypothetical, and may never ever rise in an increasingly democratic Indonesia, which now has a history of granting regional autonomy, as a response to the sort of unrest hypothesized?
Indonesia, already plays host to around 150,000 allegedly displaced asylum seekers?
Similarly, Malaysia plays host to many thousands of very long term refugees.
[We really do need a regional solution and cooperative outcomes! This was the very approach we used to legally resettle well over 100,000 Vietnamese boat people, who almost to a man, had the good sense to hang on to their personal identifying documentation; almost as if it were their most precious possession! Which it was, as it turned out!]
All of these displaced people, waiting their legitimate turn in Malaysian or Indonesian refugee camps, have as many or more claims, and mental health issues, as those now on Christmas Island or about to be transferred to offshore processing centres.
Something extremely vocal green acolytes, routinely ignore, while they seemingly struggle mightily, with everything at their disposal, to assist criminal cartels and their extremely lucrative tide, in risked or routinely drowned humanity?
In any event, only those that present with verifiable identifying documentation, ought to be treated as GENUINE asylum seekers/refugees and granted temporary protection.
Protection that can and should be withdrawn, when and if peace returns to their places of origin.
Otherwise, law abiding applicants can present to become part of the hundreds of thousands, we currently take in, as legitimate migrants?
Rhrosty.

I just think, what we're seeing now is just the start of an era of mass migration. Populations are exploding in various parts of the world, and we will soon be facing a situation where for environmental, political, and economic reasons these populations simply won't be able to be sustained within their local areas. Many people will die in their own countries of course, but many will not accept this fate and they will seek greener pastures elsewhere. Aside from firing on boats as they enter our waters, none of the strategies at the disposal of developed country governments is going to prevent this.

And in any case, I've never understood how you can believe in free trade without believing that free migration is an intrinsic and necessary part of that.

So by way of preparation, I'd say Australians need to get over their fear of the unknown, and to come to terms with the fact that they don't have a monopoly on privilege just because they were born into it. Deep thinking about the logistics can commence from there.

The Sri lankans are sailing directly from Sri Lanka, yet we pretend they are not real refugees even though they are.

Why is it that the first person to respond still comes up with the tired yarn of crossing borders as if that matters? All refugees have to cross borders and if they have to cross more than one border they are still refugees.

We are currently trying to pretend that if we ship 2100 of the world's displaced 42 million to places like Nauru and jail them for years that will stop the rest from seeking safety.

Bowen claims it is to stop smugglers, but we are no going to charge the so-called smugglers and child so called smugglers jailed here are suing us.

We are going to punish the passengers for paying people who are not smugglers so we can stop not smugglers.

They have entirely lost the plot.

I think the "crossing borders" part is because I believe that the refugee is to claim or seek asylum in the first country rather than go through a number of countries that they could have claimed asylum in.
Again I believe maybe someone more knowledgeable will be able to confirm or say it is wrong.